As of now, there is no knowledge of what exactly he was laughing about, but after listening to the audio a few times, it is evident that it was indeed laughter. Monsignor Weiss probably wasn't laughing at the shooting, but it still was one of the most inappropriate and awkward times for it to happen.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30125658

wow. many smiles and laughter all around this horrible shooting..Can you start an ew thread about this? cause this will be buried..

ITs still shows up in the google searchif you search for: "connecticut Monsignor Weiss laughs"

BTW. this article si itneresting too by the examiner: [link to www.examiner.com] "A message on the website for the Sandy Creek Elementary School says that all afternoon kindergarten is cancelled today and there is not going to be a mid-day bus run"interesting they had time for that..

"Three patients are said to be at nearby hospitals, but there is no word as to who those patients are. There is also no information as to whether or not those are children or adults."

So a local reporter in a relatively small town doesn't know/ recognize a local principal?

Even after said principle reportedly had just recently released a news release regarding the school's new security protocol?

Job 12:7) But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:8) Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.

“If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do.” -Mahatma Ghandi

What we have here in the retraction, is the paper claiming that someone identified themselves as either "the principal" (sic) and/or "Dawn Hochsprung" (sic).

You have to consider all possible interpretations of the text, those being the first two.

So what you have is a rather incomplete retraction when you have two possible interpretations: one that may or may not be physically possible "principal" (could be the vice principal) or the one that most definitely couldn't be possible which is the interpretation of the retraction which would have you believe that someone identified themselves as Hochsprung herself but you would think a reporter would ask for a name.

Anyways, the third possible interpretation is that someone impersonated Hochsprung, and the text almost implies that by saying "a woman who identified herself to our reporter as the principal of the school. The woman was not the school's principal, Dawn Hochsprung, who was killed in the Friday morning attack.".

They need to fix their retraction to be more specific.

There is no excuse for them to be leaving things open to three differing interpretations like this.

How did they get a degree?

Quoting: Mastema

“If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do.” -Mahatma Ghandi

What we have here in the retraction, is the paper claiming that someone identified themselves as either "the principal" (sic) and/or "Dawn Hochsprung" (sic).

You have to consider all possible interpretations of the text, those being the first two.

So what you have is a rather incomplete retraction when you have two possible interpretations: one that may or may not be physically possible "principal" (could be the vice principal) or the one that most definitely couldn't be possible which is the interpretation of the retraction which would have you believe that someone identified themselves as Hochsprung herself but you would think a reporter would ask for a name.

Anyways, the third possible interpretation is that someone impersonated Hochsprung, and the text almost implies that by saying "someone claiming to be Hochsprung".

They need to fix their retraction to be more specific.

There is no excuse for them to be leaving things open to three differing interpretations like this.

How did they get a degree?

Quoting: Mastema

I have heard the Vice Principal was wounded. If true, I doubt she would be talking to the paper with a gunshot.

What do you think happened? The principal did or did not give the statement? Perhaps she did and then was killed thereafter - but why would a principal pick up a phone and call or respond to a reporter during a shooting event? If it was after, then the principal was never killed?

I think she was impersonated for some reason.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8625642

As I just wrote:

"The principal was probably killed after the fact because she saw too much...but oops, she already alerted the local news as to what was going on.

Two minutes is just not enough time for one guy to have done all this killing in the office, a classroom, and then another classroom where he allegedly tried to get to children hiding in a closet."

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28535621

So the principal took a call during the shooting? Not likely.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2122006

Clearly it was AFTER the shooting. Read the story.

She was probably just letting the local news know what was going on. That sounds reasonable to me. The story includes details about staging areas for where the parents were to report, too.

News is meant to inform, believe it or not.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28535621

Stop being condescending. I am generally with you on this but you sound like a prick. So when was she shot? You need to think about this? If it was aftermath then she would have been with cops and reporters not chance to shoot her.

What we have here in the retraction, is the paper claiming that someone identified themselves as either "the principal" (sic) and/or "Dawn Hochsprung" (sic).

You have to consider all possible interpretations of the text, those being the first two.

So what you have is a rather incomplete retraction when you have two possible interpretations: one that may or may not be physically possible "principal" (could be the vice principal) or the one that most definitely couldn't be possible which is the interpretation of the retraction which would have you believe that someone identified themselves as Hochsprung herself but you would think a reporter would ask for a name.

Anyways, the third possible interpretation is that someone impersonated Hochsprung, and the text almost implies that by saying "someone claiming to be Hochsprung".

They need to fix their retraction to be more specific.

There is no excuse for them to be leaving things open to three differing interpretations like this.

How did they get a degree?

Quoting: Mastema

I have heard the Vice Principal was wounded. If true, I doubt she would be talking to the paper with a gunshot.

I haven't verified if this is true though.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28535621

So that one is probably ruled out, but still we are left with two other possibilities of interpretation of their own stated claims and it seems to me that as journalists they shouldn't ever be leaving things open to interpretation like that.

“If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do.” -Mahatma Ghandi

What we have here in the retraction, is the paper claiming that someone identified themselves as either "the principal" (sic) and/or "Dawn Hochsprung" (sic).

You have to consider all possible interpretations of the text, those being the first two.

So what you have is a rather incomplete retraction when you have two possible interpretations: one that may or may not be physically possible "principal" (could be the vice principal) or the one that most definitely couldn't be possible which is the interpretation of the retraction which would have you believe that someone identified themselves as Hochsprung herself but you would think a reporter would ask for a name.

Anyways, the third possible interpretation is that someone impersonated Hochsprung, and the text almost implies that by saying "someone claiming to be Hochsprung".

They need to fix their retraction to be more specific.

There is no excuse for them to be leaving things open to three differing interpretations like this.

How did they get a degree?

Quoting: Mastema

I have heard the Vice Principal was wounded. If true, I doubt she would be talking to the paper with a gunshot.

I haven't verified if this is true though.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28535621

Reporter got the name of the principal too so it was not a mix up between vice and principal.

Reporter got the name of the principal too so it was not a mix up between vice and principal.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2122006

Or, as one person conjectured, they didn't actually get the name and went by their notes on who this "principal" was.

The retraction is basically telling the reader "Someone claiming to be either the principal and/or Dawn Hochsprung"

Because if you read it one way, you could read it as saying that someone, unnamed, merely said "principal" without giving the name.

And that the reporter filled in the name being that "the principal" is Hochsprung.

Or you could read it your way and read it as saying that someone unnamed claimed to be Hochsprung.

Or you could read it as saying that it wasn't Hochsprung because she was dead so that it had to be someone else.

That would mean they are stating as a fact that she was dead at the time of the call and couldn't have made the call due to that.

So there are so many possible mistakes and the biggest one is writing an article and making a retraction that is left open to interpretation.

That should require another retraction.

“If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do.” -Mahatma Ghandi

No op is right but we need to drill down on this. When was the interview given because we know the principal is dead. I think the principal never gave an interview that some operative impersonated her to plant a storyline but that has a problem too in that what was supposed to be the storyline?

What we have here in the retraction, is the paper claiming that someone identified themselves as either "the principal" (sic) and/or "Dawn Hochsprung" (sic).

You have to consider all possible interpretations of the text, those being the first two.

So what you have is a rather incomplete retraction when you have two possible interpretations: one that may or may not be physically possible "principal" (could be the vice principal) or the one that most definitely couldn't be possible which is the interpretation of the retraction which would have you believe that someone identified themselves as Hochsprung herself but you would think a reporter would ask for a name.

Anyways, the third possible interpretation is that someone impersonated Hochsprung, and the text almost implies that by saying "someone claiming to be Hochsprung".

They need to fix their retraction to be more specific.

There is no excuse for them to be leaving things open to three differing interpretations like this.

How did they get a degree?

Quoting: Mastema

I have heard the Vice Principal was wounded. If true, I doubt she would be talking to the paper with a gunshot.

I haven't verified if this is true though.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28535621

Reporter got the name of the principal too so it was not a mix up between vice and principal.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2122006

It doesn't say for sure that the reporter got the name from the caller, it can be interpreted as someone merely saying "this is the principal".

Just like if someone was called by Obama and he said "...your President, speaking." and they wrote an article about it they could say identified as President Obama without asking him his name.

In other words it cold have gone like this:

"Who am I speaking with."

"I'm the principal"

Instead of the caller ever saying "Dawn Hochsprung".

“If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do.” -Mahatma Ghandi

What we have here in the retraction, is the paper claiming that someone identified themselves as either "the principal" (sic) and/or "Dawn Hochsprung" (sic).

You have to consider all possible interpretations of the text, those being the first two.

So what you have is a rather incomplete retraction when you have two possible interpretations: one that may or may not be physically possible "principal" (could be the vice principal) or the one that most definitely couldn't be possible which is the interpretation of the retraction which would have you believe that someone identified themselves as Hochsprung herself but you would think a reporter would ask for a name.

Anyways, the third possible interpretation is that someone impersonated Hochsprung, and the text almost implies that by saying "someone claiming to be Hochsprung".

They need to fix their retraction to be more specific.

There is no excuse for them to be leaving things open to three differing interpretations like this.

How did they get a degree?

Quoting: Mastema

I have heard the Vice Principal was wounded. If true, I doubt she would be talking to the paper with a gunshot.

I haven't verified if this is true though.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28535621

Reporter got the name of the principal too so it was not a mix up between vice and principal.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2122006

It doesn't say for sure that the reporter got the name from the caller, it can be interpreted as someone merely saying "this is the principal".

Just like if someone was called by Obama and he said "...your President, speaking." and they wrote an article about it they could say identified as President Obama without asking him his name.

In other words it cold have gone like this:

"Who am I speaking with."

"I'm the principal"

Instead of the caller ever saying "Dawn Hochsprung".

Quoting: Mastema

What is you point? Someone posed as the principal. It blows a whole in this a mile wide.

She is 43...... 4+3 = 7____________________________________________________________​

God introduced the Number Seven as a symbol of the completion of His initial creative act. But the work that He ended on the Seventh Day in the First Book was really just the beginning of the Biblical revelation of all history that He consummated in the Last Book. And it is here that we see the Divine consistency of the Number Seven as a Biblical symbol; God used it with exactly the same meaning when He revealed the end of time, described as the completion of the "mystery of God," in Revelation 10:5

And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

&#945;&#953;&#948;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#953; ~ "The angel of the LORD encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them." (Psa 34:7)

Reporter got the name of the principal too so it was not a mix up between vice and principal.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2122006

Or, as one person conjectured, they didn't actually get the name and went by their notes on who this "principal" was.

The retraction is basically telling the reader "Someone claiming to be either the principal and/or Dawn Hochsprung"

Because if you read it one way, you could read it as saying that someone, unnamed, merely said "principal" without giving the name.

And that the reporter filled in the name being that "the principal" is Hochsprung.

Or you could read it your way and read it as saying that someone unnamed claimed to be Hochsprung.

Or you could read it as saying that it wasn't Hochsprung because she was dead so that it had to be someone else.

That would mean they are stating as a fact that she was dead at the time of the call and couldn't have made the call due to that.

So there are so many possible mistakes and the biggest one is writing an article and making a retraction that is left open to interpretation.

That should require another retraction.

Quoting: Mastema

Regardless, someone is posing as the principal.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2122006

Yes, they didn't say whether or not a name was given.

..and, yes, that is what the text of the retraction is implying, someone claiming to be the principal of the high school, and it is also implying that it was not Hochsprung "who was dead" [at the time of the call] who called.

“If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do.” -Mahatma Ghandi